linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] detour TTY driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1277244410.2195.47.camel@itpsd6lap>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:06:50 +0200
From:	Samo Pogacnik <samo_pogacnik@....net>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-embedded <linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] detour TTY driver - now ttyprintk

On 21.06.2010 (Mon) at 15:38 +0100 Alan Cox wrote:
> > I'm thinking to leave the ratelimit support in for the time being. I had
> > in mind cases, when someone does
> >  "cat /proc/kmsg > dev/ttyprintk" or
> > suppose the console is redirected to ttyprintk (which i would like to be
> > able to do from user program)
> 
> Console as in the printk sense would then loop.
> 
> If you are going to do the flow control you should probably do something
> like
> 
> 
> write_room()
> {
> 	if (!flow_controlled)
> 		space = 8192;
> 	return space;
> }
> 
> write()
> {
> 	space -= len;
> }
> 
> then your flow control will behave properly and slow down users rather
> than losing data (except stuff sent without blocking)
> 
For correct flow control, i suppose current empty space of the real
(final) printk buffer is needed. On the other hand my intermediate
pre-formatting buffer is only "one line" long, but serialized on access
in a way that it is always completely available (except for the time of
tpk_printk() function running). As such intermediate buffer only defines
maximum write_room space.

Now there are two ideas. The first one is to dig out current real printk
buffer space (smells like hacking?) and adapt write_room to that space
in some logical manner. And the other would be to use ratelimit support
to switch between max and zero in write_room answer and remove other
retelimit response?

What do you suggest, do i miss something?

regards, Samo

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/